All posts by Fja3987

<p>I agree with Neo. There could easily just be a huge ocean on the other side.  </p>

It would be cool to see a side story of the fire nation

<p>So yeah, i'm going to leave now. I probably won't come back to this thread for at least a long time. FYI for any future posters. </p>

<p>I am also getting tired of this again. </p><p>Can we just agree to disagree? or "get bored of it" or "dismiss that stupid guy who will never learn"? if you want to call it that. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>StefCW wrote: Get over yourself. I literally no-lifed that show when I was younger, and I still go back to it quite frequently. </p> </i></div>
<p>Chill, I just said what I thought. I didn't say it was a fact. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Unlikely. Based on Neo Bahamut's observations that 6/7 people disagree with you, I've concluded that about 85% of the people on this thread disagree with you. It's far more likely that the one person who disagrees with the many people is wrong, unless the 6 are not knowledgeable of the subject, which is not the case here. Even if the number is actually 5/7 as you say, that still makes the percent who disagree 71%, meaning it's still more likely that you are wrong based on probability. </p> </i></div>
<p>ok. but, some of you did have different explanations for it. neo and saitama disagreed with you about the significance of willpower for example. this also isn't hard science. we are talking about a fantasy TV show that requires some imagination and one's own interpretation. Ya know, its possible for all of us to not be completely right or wrong on this. True, Bryke never flat out stated that limbs were required for effective combat fighting. and they never said someone without limbs couldn't be effective at fighting but, the show very heavily implied it. if heavy implications aren't good enough for you then fine, have your limbless bending fighting. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>I've already explained multiple times that you are wrong. Motionless bending and bending with minimal use of limbs did happen in ATLA. You are just ignoring that because it doesn't fit with your narrative. </p><p>I've also mentioned multiple times that your use of "interesting" is subjective, and thus invalid in this discussion. </p> </i></div>
<p>I know it happened. why do I keep having to remind everyone of this? I said no one ever fought effectively without it. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>That's highly unlikely. One, because such an overpowered character would be totally beyond levels that the majority (rather than just the nitpickers) would find interesting to watch. Two, because such an overpowered character would be so totally beyond the power levels of the cast's majority that he/she would be akin to a god, and it's highly unlikely the creators would go so far. Three, because that Earthbender would surpass Toph, which would likely enrage Toph fans. Four, because the show is over and is not likely to return. </p> </i></div>
<p>see, "interest" matters. I found Yakone, Amon, Ming Hua not interesting to watch. I guess we just have different levels of how OP something should be for it to be interesting. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: This has been proven wrong so many times, but every time it is, you make some excuse for why it "doesn't count. </p> </i></div>
<p>no.....people have just given examples of times people bent without limbs. I've said a million times that I don't think limbs are required for every single instance of bending, I said that in the OP. I said no one fought effectively without them. that is why they "don't count". </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Do I have to? There is literally no evidence of it. They don't move the tornado by waving their arms, for instance. </p> </i></div>
<p>ok but, where were we going with this? if they can create a tornado just be spinning, why should they be able to do a ton of other fighting moves? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Why can't you seem to understand the slippery slope fallacy even though I know damn well it's been explained to you multiple times? </p><p>What's hilarious is that there's actually no limit here TO break. There's never been any concrete cap on how much material an earthbender can control at once. </p> </i></div>
<p>because a slippery slope says something WILL happen. i'm saying it CAN happen. which I can. the writers could do that and the excuse would be just as valid. </p><p>and you think there isn't some unknown limit? you think it would be fine and perfectly consistent if an earthbender bent the whole world? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Given that pretty much everyone who's argued against you has pointed out examples that you overlooked, this is obviously just egotism on your part. </p> </i></div>
<p>I didn't say I was correct. I said that is what I thought. what kind of ego gets fueled by watching a TV show more than someone else anyway? </p> <div class="quote"><i>Well, I was referring to the explanation for how Ming-Hua's powers work. I have no idea what you were referring to when you used that phrase, because the mere act of observing your argument seems to change it </i></div>
<p>when I used what phrase? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Either way, it's clear there's a pattern. It's implausible that 1000 people make 1000 different errors that result in the same conclusion. </p> </i></div>
<p>but, 1000 people could make 2 or 3 different errors. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p><p>1. I just plain never said that anything was true "because a lot of people believe in it," I asked why you don't wonder what you're not seeing that everyone else seems to be. That is not the same thing. </p> </i></div>
<p>ok, fair enough. I have wondered, I think it is because many people did not watch the first show as many times as I did. and therefore forgot the implications of it. but, not everyone I have talked to disagrees with me. Vyarka above seemed to agree if I remember. and others in real life and on other websites have agreed. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>2. Independent observation is still an incredibly valuable tool, as it means that either the observers are all making the same error, or they're actually seeing what they say they are. </p> </i></div>
<p>ok. couldn't they be making different errors to reach the same incorrect conclusion? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>3. You have thus far failed to explain why the explanations of Ming-Hua's abilities are wrong, casting doubt on the "user error" explanation. </p> </i></div>
<p>I've explained why they make the universe less interesting. and I've explained their inconsistencies with what was shown in ATLA. or at the very least heavily implied. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>4. I will not even give you credit for "not believing them" until you've proven that you <i>actually understand them</i>. </p> </i></div>
<p>what? not believing what? </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: I don't "get off point," you say vague shit & then when it's PROVEN WRONG, you make excuses & try to claim it "wasn't the point." </p> </i></div>
<p>you really think the point was that exactly 3 people on this thread disagreed with me? no, the point of that sentence was that it was a small number. so yeah sure, I was "proven wrong" about the exact number. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Okay, so that confirms that you don't even understand what it is that you're arguing against </p> </i></div>
<p>effective bending combat without the use of limbs. that is what we have always been talking about. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Replacement arms=/=extra arms. They follow the movements of her stumps, which are where her arms would be if they existed. </p> </i></div>
<p>....ok. i'm saying that they shouldn't do that. because all the other characters needed their arms and entire bodies to fight. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Which isn't a problem to anyone who is aware that "martial arts" is not just punching & kicking. </p> </i></div>
<p>not JUST. but it is a big part. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Yes, Tenzin makes a tornado when his arms are tied. </p><p>They hold their arms out for BALANCE, Dr. Hubble </p> </i></div>
<p>and in the original series? </p><p>and how do you know they are doing it for balance? how do you know they aren't using it for balance AND to bend? </p> <div class="quote"><i>and eventually we could have an earthbender who can bend the whole earth because he has "unusual genetics".</i></div>
<p>Slippery slope fallacy. </div> </p><p>how? it they can just use "unusual genetics" as an explanation for something that breaks previous limits. why cant they just keep doing that? </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: "But" that's not what you said, you said that "any character could have learned these skills at any time." So, for starters, you've completely switched from arguing about <i>past</i> characters to <i>future</i> characters. </p> </i></div>
<p>I was referring the Ming Hua's skills about past characters. </p><p>in regards to Yakone's powers. any character can just have "unusual genetics" whenever the writer wants and eventually we could have an earthbender who can bend the whole earth because he has "unusual genetics". </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>A prime example. Why is it okay that a waterbender can create a towering water tornado by spinning, but can't use that same technique to graft some water whips onto her armless shoulders? It clearly has nothing to do with the amount of water. </p> </i></div>
<p>ming hua also fights with her water arms. just by spinning. she whips and grabs and lifts water etc. pretty much all from spinning and bowing. she doesn't just graft them onto her body. also when they create tornados they are using their arms as well. do they ever just stand there, arms down, and create a tornado by spinning? </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: If laughing derisively at a point means it's stupid, would you like to know how often I laugh at you? </p> </i></div>
<p>no. it doesn't. it is simply laughing. jeez, you really focus on these pointless things way too much. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>There are at least 7 people in this thread who have explained these things to you, & I only scrolled up about a 5th of the way when counting so your "3 people" figure is way off. </p> </i></div>
<p>not the point. 7 isn't much bigger than 3. the point is that it is a small number. again you always get off point. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Why am I not surprised that you don't know that the "support" for a position refers to the strength of the logic & evidence? </p> </i></div>
<p>because the word "support" can have multiple meanings in the English language. You could just as easily have meant number of people who SUPPORT it. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Your straw man of what I said is indeed invalid. And if you could explain <i>why</i> the explanations you are given are wrong, you might have a point. </p> </i></div>
<p>you want me to explain why the popularity argument is invalid? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Only if you happen to have your arms lopped off mid-battle & are somehow still in any position to keep fighting. </p> </i></div>
<p>or if they are trapped or broken. or tired. you can just not use them if you want. it would actually be advantageous to keep your arms down as much as possible. less of a target. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>If you complain about everything, you're bound to get 1 or 2 things right, but considering <i>you complain about everything</i>, that comes out as close to 0%. </p> </i></div>
<p>no. I don't complain about plots very much. or the animation. or the voice acting. or some of the other new bending things. etc. I don't complain about everything. You actually seem to agree with half the stuff I complain about. just not on this thread. </p>

<p>^no. that is a different topic. stay on topic. I just brought I up in response to neobahamut's comment that all my complaints were incoherent. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p><p>More-or-less, I just stopped talking because I was bored. The only time I actually "agree to disagree" is when I can actually see Position B having about as much support as Position A, which isn't often. </p> </i></div>
<p>popularity should never be used as an argument or reason to believe something. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Basically. He has a ton of complaints, none of them very coherent. </p> </i></div>
<p>I thought you agreed at least somewhat with my other two categories of complaints. The change of the spirits/spirit world and the ridiculous technology (like the giant robot thing). You just disagree with my bending complaints. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>StefCW wrote: Life is boring without rules? You have an unusual idea of fun, if you don't mind me saying so. And for the record, the people who actually developed the martial arts disagree. According to them, willpower is limited only by your own mindset. With a disciplined mind and a strong will, one can do extraordinary things that would otherwise be beyond their capabilities. That's an actual martial arts teaching. Therefore, it can also be applied to bending, which is derived from the martial arts as you've said repeatedly. </p><p>Also, I think you'd be surprised how strong a 10 year-old can be. </p> </i></div>
<p>by rules I mean the laws of physics. not like social or government laws. if 2 plus Friday could equal fish. nothing would matter. and it doesn't matter if that is what the martial arts people actually believe. that doesn't mean it is true. even if they are correct about certain aspects of martial arts doesn't mean they are correct about everything. </p><p>and a 10 year old still wouldn't be mike Tyson. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>From where I'm standing, it doesn't seem like you agreed on anything. After all, they're still coming back here to counter you. </p> </i></div>
<p>Yeah, I don't know why. We ended this months ago. If you read the previous posts. I feel like we are having the same discussions. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Speaking of being tired of repetition, I believe I've told you multiple times what I thought of your use of the word "cool". The word is subjective, and thus has no place in a civilized debate. In any event, as I've (also) said repeatedly, motionless bending was in ATLA, just not to the same level. Which means that, although a bit of an extreme case, Yakone's motionless bloodbending is still within the rules established by the first show. </p><p>Frankly, if what you've posted is anything to go by, then you're probably just one of those people who worships ATLA while hating LoK for no reason. I mean, seriously? Hating an entire show just because <i>one</i> father/son due was able to bend without moving? That's a level of nitpicking that rivals the Lucas haters in the Star Wars fandom. </p> </i></div>
<p>that's exactly it. the level of motionless bending. they took it too a new level which ruined everything interesting (which is relevant because this is entertainment) about it. if you find it interesting than whatever. but, I don't like when limits are just broken and powers are just changed all the time. I like when it is better defined early on. </p><p>I have many problems with ATLA as well. They just aren't as big. and I have many other problems with LOK besides this. I don't just hate it for no reason. I REALLY wanted to like it. I even forgave all the flaws of the first season at first hoping it would get better but, season 2 was too much. I do think many of the plots had potential to be good but, the inconsistencies of the universe shown in ATLA ruin it for me. So no, i'm not just hating out of nostalgia or anything. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: Waterbending is based on T'ai Chi, which is about using your opponent's attacks against them. A frequent move of Ming-Hua's is grabbing an attacking opponent with her water limb & spinning to throw them into an object. That's a very similar principle. </p><p>Airbending is similar, tornadoes are frequently made by--get this--spinning. </p> </i></div>
<p>ok whats your point? i'm saying she shouldn't be able to do most of those things without arms. she shouldn't be able to make her water arms. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>No, damn it, Yakone has unusual genetics & Ming-Hua learned the same way that Toph learned the Seismic Sense: A LIFETIME of having to compensate for a lack of arms. </p><p>Even though Toph could teach the Seismic Sense to others, it still took a lot of training. </p><p>And seeing how Ming-Hua still has to move her stumps, you're not going to be seeing waterbenders with shoulder-tendrils while the rest of their arms remain stationary. </p> </i></div>
<p>yeah but, someone else in the future might have "unusual genetics". and that power is so OP it has no weaknesses except the avatar state. </p><p>aang learned seismic sense in a few months. we have no idea about ming hua's training. and given the knowledge, it would make sense to train everyone how to bend without using arms. as it would be a huge advantage in a fight. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>It's weird that this doesn't make you go, "Hm, if everyone else sees how this works, maybe <i>I'm</i> the one who's missing something?" </p> </i></div>
<p>hahahaha no. first off. that is 3 people. 2nd, this is a fictional thing that requires a gap of imagination anyway. </p><p>most importantly. one only needs a very basic knowledge of history to understand why that argument is invalid. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>StefCW wrote: Why are you getting so worked up over this? "Interesting" and "cool are subjective. You can't definitively say "This is cooler than that". </p><p>And for the record, willpower's only limit is the person who has that willpower. This is true even in real life. And, it's something you see in most anime protagonists; the ability to fight or keep fighting through sheer will, no matter what happens to them. If the show put some arbitrary limit on how strong a will could be, that would be stupid. </p> </i></div>
<p>I know. I am saying I think it is cooler when there are limits on things because that is how real life is. I also like when things are consistent its level of "interest" or "coolness" is relevant because its a form of entertainment. </p><p>and there definitely is a limit to willpower in real life. no matter how big your willpower is, you will never fly without assistance. you could take a 10 year old with the highest willpower and he still wont beat mike Tyson in a fight. there are limits. without limits and rules life would be kind of boring. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>First of all, martial arts involves more than just attacking. It also includes twists and dodges, so you're dead wrong on this one. Second, what future? The show's already over. Nobody else ended up using the psychic bending thing, proving you wrong again. </p><p>Also, why do you <i>never</i> capitalise words? It makes your comments harder to read when you don't follow basic language rules. </p> </i></div>
<p>Ok fine. She does no attack moves yet still attacks. and while LOK is over, the franchise might not be. They might make more shows in the future. But, it also just kind of ruins it for me knowing that any character could've learned armless/psychic bending at any time. The universe of avatar was always one of the coolest things about it. Its a cool universe to think about. But, what was shown in LOK ruined everything cool about it. </p><p>Sorry about my typing. I'll try to capitalize more. There is also something weird about this website, when I type it often leaves out words or parts of words I meant to type. I thought it was my fault at first But, I don't have this problem on other websites or Microsoft word so idk. Sorry for that as well. </p><p>Lastly, I think we can agree to disagree on this topic. Like I did with Neobahamut and SaitamaBro. You are kind of just saying the same things they said, which isn't really your fault, its just I've had this discussion before and I am kind of tired of it. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>StefCW wrote: And in most cases form does play a big part. However, since part of bending involves willpower, it stands to reason that a strong-willed bender would be able to bypass the necessity of the movements. </p> </i></div>
<p>or it could be that willpower can only go so far. that would be a much more interesting option. but, nooooooooooooooooooo </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Calm down, friend. It only ever happened with two people. That's not nearly enough for it to have become uninteresting. If everyone was doing it, then sure, it would get boring. However, it was never done by anyone other than Yakone and Amon, and only a couple of times at that. You're making a big deal out of nothing. </p> </i></div>
<p>well ming hua also uses no martial arts moves. even if she does ballet moves. but, this means these things can happen with more people in the future. everyone can learn to bend without their arms and losing movement of your arms will no longer be much weakness. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>SaitamaBro wrote: How many fights have you seen with motionless bending? Yakone vs Aang? Amon vs Korra? Seriously, that's too much nitpicking. You talk as if they only stand in front of each other while the elements are moving around them in every fight in LoK. </p> </i></div>
<p>well yes pretty much the only ones with complete motionlessness are the ones with amon and yakone. however, ming hua's lack of martial arts moves is also what annoys me. </p><p>the fact that these things are possible in the universe ruins the universe for me. even if it is only a few people, that means it CAN become more and more widespread. people can just start using their arms less now (even if they have them). making the universe boring and uninteresting. also, pinning limbs was a good weakness that everyone had. now it is no longer a weakness. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>"Cool" is incredibly subjective. I think that the way Yakone could bend through sheer will was <i>very</i> cool. I'd think it was old if everyone did it, but it was just him and his son. So I disagree completely with your statement. </p> </i></div>
<p>I know that. but, I think it is cool when the reason for the winner of a battle is a little more than "they are just stronger" as in other fantasy fights. bending takes a lot of practice to do the moves correctly. it also offers a way to cripple your opponent (disabling their body). </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>That's not what you said. Not to me, anyway. You said that form alone influenced the strength of someone's bending. Nothing else. And I say, if that is the case, then they could just as easily fight hand to hand. They'd be using the same form, just not bothering to chuck rocks or fireballs at each other. Fortunately, bending is influenced by more than just form. The chi of the bender is taken into account. </p> </i></div>
<p>well, I said mostly it is form. but, I still don't get why you would ever not bend if you could? if two people had say....Katars (Indian punching swords) would they just put them down and have a fist fight because it would be the same form? what? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>No, I didn't say that. I was specifically referring to Toph's hand movements. Being able to lift a boulder would <i>definitely</i> be useful in a fight (as The Pebble proved during Earth Rumble VI). And, again, that's not what you said. You specifically stated that bending strength was entirely determined by form, not by the bender's physical or mental strength. Me bringing up Toph's casual boulder lifting in the first place was to counter that claim. </p> </i></div>
<p>ok, well maybe you misunderstood. I said partially by form. partially by other things. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Yes, she does. But that's because she hasn't trained to preform motionless bending. I imagine her will is strong enough that she could do it if she tried. And as I've said multiple times now, Aang can airbend without moving. Thus, you are wrong about motionless bending, and you should just give up this pointless argument. </p> </i></div>
<p>aang cant find without moving. the point is that the fights are not interesting if they don't have to move. motionless bending should have little to no use in fights. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>I said "<i>a</i> conduit", meaning it's not the only path for chi to enter the world (again, as evidenced by Aang's glider). Yakone probably is able to bloodbend without moving through sheer force of will. And it's quite clear from watching LoK that Yakone had a very strong will. </p> </i></div>
<p>ok. but, that still ruins everything cool and unique about bending fights vs other fantasy fights. (if they can fight with little to no movement). </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Changing the way it's worded doesn't change my response. In such a scenario, it becomes pointless for two benders to use bending on each other, since they could just as easily fight hand-to-hand to determine the winner. Fortunately, in Avatar, though the form <i>is</i> important, it is not the only thing that matters. </p> </i></div>
<p>how? how at all? why would you not bend if you could? and I've said I don't think it is ONLY reliant on moves. just mostly. "strength" still plays a role. as does environmental advantages. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>As I said earlier, raising and lowing your hands is not a fighting move, yet by doing that Toph can easily lift a boulder four times larger than what The Boulder was able to lift with considerable effort using his best WWE impression. This has nothing to do with form. It's because she has the stronger chi. </p><p>And for the record, a quick jab doesn't have the same power as a heavy punch you've put your weight behind. I know that from my martial arts classes. So, yeah. Subtle and minimalistic <i>does</i> equal less powerful. Power doesn't always win a fight, of course, but to say that a jab and a punch have the <i>same</i> power is simply incorrect. </p> </i></div>
<p>as you also said earlier, lifting some earth up and down isn't really a fighting move either. and as I said, even if someone has stronger bending doesn't mean it is more skillful. </p><p>ok, well as you said yourself. toph is "stronger". perhaps the strength of bending is more mental. still she relies on movements to move earth and fight. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>StefCW wrote: </p>

The person with the stronger chi will have more powerful bending. The movements simply provide a conduit for the chi to enter the world and bend the elements.

</i></div>
<p>when did they say this? all they've said is that they have chi, and it needs to "flow" (whatever than means) for bending to be possible. but, with your explanation, you pretty much say the movements are necessary. since they are a "conduit to enter the world". how is yakone's chi "entering the world". ??? </div> </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Actually, I think I'll add something. Since you brought up the whole "best grimace face" thing, let me point out that your concept of bending is pretty much the same. If bending was purely based on fighting moves, then the bender who had the coolest looking moves would be the winner. In that scenario, the actual bending becomes pointless, since the two benders could just have a regular martial arts match to determine the winner. Fortunately, that's not the case. </p> </i></div>
<p>its not about the coolest moves, its the correct moves. and doing the correct moves takes practice to get right. you need to actually train your body to do the correct moves. remember when katara did the moves wrong and the water didn't move how she wanted? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Think of Toph, for example. Toph's earthbending moves are rather minimalistic and subtle compared to orthodox earthbending, sometimes using one of those simple gestures you despise to accomplish moves that for other earthbenders would take a lot of big lift movements or ground stomping to achieve. Her fight against the Boulder is a fair example of that. Or the time she was smashing a huge rock against the ground just by raising or lowering her hands (which I wouldn't exactly call a fighting move, by the way), a feat that another earthbender would need to use giant lifting motions and a lot of grunting and sweating to accomplish. She is able to do these things because she has more powerful chi. </p> </i></div>
<p>subtle and minimalistic doesn't mean less powerful, necessarily. I don't really see what you are getting at here, toph always uses martial arts moves when fighting, even if they are a different style. she does seem to be able to move more earth than average, I always thought that was stupid myself. but, at least she still needs martial arts moves to do it. like I said to neo, the form of a martial arts move can give it more power. even if it is the same move. perhaps toph has better form. </p>